alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In re Nikki POOSHS, Nikki Pooshs, Petitioner, v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco, Respondent, Phillip Morris USA, Inc.; Philip Morris Companies, Inc.; R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc.; R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; Nabisco Group Holdings Corp.; Nabisco Inc.; Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation, individually and as successor by merger to The American Tobacco Company and its predecessors in interest; British American Tobacco Company PLC; Lorillard Tobacco Company; Lorillard Inc.; Liggett Group Incorporated; Liggett & Myers Inc.; Liggett and Myers Tobacco Company; Vector Group Ltd.; Hill & Knowlton Inc; Tobacco Institute, Inc.; Council for Tobacco Research USA Incorporated; DNA Plant Technology, Corporation; Safeway Inc., Real Parties in Interest.

No. 08-73153.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 12, 2008.

Filed July 14, 2011.

Lloyd F. Leroy, James P. Nevin, Esquire, Brayton Purcell, LLP, Novato, CA, for Petitioner.

Peter N. Larson, Jones Day, James Lee Dumas, Esquire, Randall D. Haimovici, *359Esquire, Shook Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Gayle L. Gough, Sedgwick, Detert, Moran *&*Arnold LLP, Stanley G. Roman, Esquire, Krieg Keller Sloan Reilley *&*Roman, LLP, Raymond Charles Marshall, Esquire, Bingham McCutchen, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Ashlie E. Case, Esquire, Jones Day, Cleveland, OH, J. Leah Castel-la, Esquire, McDonough Holland & Allen P.C., Oakland, CA, for Real Parties in Interest.

Before: B. FLETCHER and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and HART, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable William T. Hart, Senior District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

The Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 15 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 15

 Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Libya 
  and the Government and the people of the United States, and making 
                    provision to prosecute the same.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 25, 2011

  Mr. Paul introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
        twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Libya 
  and the Government and the people of the United States, and making 
                    provision to prosecute the same.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That--
            (1) a state of war between the United States and the 
        Government of Libya is hereby formally declared; and
            (2) the President is hereby authorized and directed--
                    (A) to employ the entire naval and military forces 
                of the United States and the resources of the United 
                States Government to carry on war against the 
                Government of Libya; and
                    (B) to issue to private armed vessels of the United 
                States commissions or letters of marque and general 
                reprisal, in such form as the President shall think 
                proper, and under the seal of the United States, 
                against the vessels, goods, and effects of the 
                Government of Libya.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bi-Optic Ventures Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Harry Chew, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:  May 26, 2010



/s/ Harry Chew

Harry Chew

Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and Director

(Principal Executive Officer)





1
# C_2020027EN.01001801.xml

| 27.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 22 October 2019 — ‘TEAM POWER EUROPE’ EOOD v Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite — Varna

(Case C-784/19)

(2020/C 27/24)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘TEAM POWER EUROPE’ EOOD

Defendant: Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite — Varna

Question referred

Is Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems to be interpreted as meaning that, in order for it to be possible to assume that an undertaking engaged in providing temporary personnel normally carries out its activities in the Member State in which it is established, it has to perform a substantial part of the employee assignment activity for hirers established in the same Member State?

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1.

---
| 1.   | The      Annual Report of the Companies on Form 10-K for the year ended August 30,      2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)      or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;  and |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Companies as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the      Report. |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                               |                                                                               |   |   |
|--------|------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|   |                               |                                                                               |
|   | /s/      DONALD J. PERCENTI   |                                                                               |
|   | Name:                    | Donald J.      Percenti                                                       |   |
|   | Title:                   | President      and Chief Executive Officer(principal executive      officer)  |   |
Order entered November 20, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00525-CR

MARK JOHN THEDE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 296-82447-2012

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On October 24, 2014, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why 

appellant’s brief had not been filed. On November 18, 2014, we received appellant’s brief, 

together with an extension motion. Therefore, in the interest of expediting the appeal, we 

VACATE the October 24, 2014 to the extent it requires findings.

The October 24, 2014 order also required the trial court to prepare and file a certification 

of appellant’s right to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a), (d); Cortez v. State, 420 S.W.3d 803 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2013). We have not yet received the certification
Accordingly, we ORDER the trial court to file, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of 

this order, a completed certification of appellant’s right to appeal that accurately reflects the trial 

court proceedings.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the 

Honorable John Roach, Jr., Presiding Judge, 296th Judicial District Court; the Collin County 

District Clerk; and to counsel all parties.

/s/ ADA BROWN

JUSTICE
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1 SECTION 1350 -- CEO CERTIFICATION

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Yearly Report of Patriot Bank Corp. ("Patriot")
on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
A. Elko, Chief Executive Officer of Patriot, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

                  (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of
                           section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
                           of 1934; and

                  (2)      The information contained in the Report truly
                           presents, in all in material respects, the financial
                           condition and result of operations of Patriot.

                                                   /s/ Richard A. Elko
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Richard A. Elko
                                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                                   March 15, 2004

                                       96
EXHIBIT 21.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF MEDALLION FINANCIAL CORP.



|                                 |  |                                           
|-------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Name                             |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Formation
|Medallion Funding Corp.          |  | New York                                  
|                                 | 
|Medallion Capital, Inc.          |  | Minnesota                                 
|                                 | 
|Freshstart Venture Capital Corp. |  | New York                                  
|                                 | 
|Medallion Bank                   |  | Utah                                      
|                                 | 
|Generation Outdoor, Inc          |  | Delaware                                  
|                                 | 
|Medallion Hamptons Holding LLC   |  | Delaware                                  
|                                 | 
|Taxi Medallion Loan Trust I      |  | Delaware                                  
|                                 | 
|Taxi Medallion Loan Trust II     |  | Delaware                                  
|                                 | 
|Taxi Medallion Loan Trust III    |  | Delaware                                  
|                                 | 
|Medallion Financing Trust I      |  | Delaware
#### In the Matter of Kerry Kotler, Petitioner, v E. S. LeFevre, as Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Main, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in Clinton County) to annul a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services finding petitioner guilty of violating certain disciplinary rules.

Petitioner is an inmate at Clinton Correctional Facility. During a routine search of petitioner’s cell, two sharpened metal objects were discovered. An inmate misbehavior report was issued charging petitioner with violating the rule which prohibits inmates from possessing weapons. A Superintendent’s proceeding was held and petitioner was found guilty. As a penalty, petitioner was suspended from his institutional job. An administrative appeal was taken by petitioner and the determination was affirmed. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging that the evidence was insufficient to warrant a finding of guilty. Special Term transferred the proceeding to this court.

An inmate misbehavior report prepared by the correction officer who discovered the objects and indicating what was found and where it was found was read into the record. This court has held that “a statement from a witness with direct knowledge of the incident involved, without more, is sufficient to support a prison disciplinary decision” *(Matter of Vogelsang v Coombe,*105 AD2d 913, *lv granted*64 NY2d 609; *see, Matter of Garcia v LeFevre,*102 AD2d 1004, 1005, *revd on other grounds*64 NY2d 1001). Thus, the inmate misbehavior report may be sufficient evidence of petitioner’s guilt *(Matter of Burgos v Coughlin,*108 AD2d 194). Furthermore, there is nothing in the record to support petitioner’s claim that other inmates might have left the sharpened objects in his cell. Likewise, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the penalty demonstrates doubt as to petitioner’s guilt. Accordingly, we find that the administrative *585determination is supported by substantial evidence and must be confirmed.

Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Main, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
#### ROGERS, Respondent, v. F R A N K L I N MILLS CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 25, 1907.)

Action by Richard J. Rogers against the Franklin Mills Company. G. S. Scofield, for appellant. T. M. Rowlette, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION

906 OF THE SARBAENES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Solely for the purpose of complying with
18 U.S.C. §1350, each of the undersigned officers of American Commerce Solutions, Inc., hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended February 28, 2009, (the Report) fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |                                                                    |  |                  
|---------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | -----------------
|Signatures             |  | Title                                                              |  | Date             
|                       |  |                                                                   
|/s/ Robert E. Maxwell  |  | Chairman of the Board & Director                                   |  | February 18, 2010
|Robert E. Maxwell      |  |                                                                    | 
|                       |  |                                                                   
|/s/ Daniel L. Hefner   |  | Chief Executive Officer, President & Director                      |  | February 18, 2010
|Daniel L. Hefner       |  |                                                                    | 
|                       |  |                                                                   
|/s/ Frank D. Puissegur |  | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) and Director |  | February 18, 2010
|Frank D. Puissegur     |  |                                                                    |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19
- 036 9 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MALCOLM JOSEPH NEWROBE, SR. ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including July 30 , 2020 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brie f on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 24 2020

06/24/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0369
#### In the Matter of Edmund Joseph Waldron, Jr., an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Petitioner.

Proceeding by petitioner, pursuant to statute (Judiciary Law § 750 [A] [3], [4]; § 753 [A] [1] [5]) to punish respondent Edmund Joseph Waldron, Jr., for contempt of court for his failure to obey three subpoenas issued by the court.

Application granted; this court finds the respondent to be in contempt unless he purges himself by complying with the subpoenas within 10 days after service upon him of a copy of the order entered on this decision. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano, Gibbons and Thompson, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 31.1



SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION



I, Harry Chew, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Bi-Optic Ventures Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The Registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:



a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure

controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that

material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated

subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,

particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and

procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the

effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of

the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal control

over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most recent

fiscal quarter (the Registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an

annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to

materially affect, the Registrants internal control over financial

reporting; and



5. The Registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the audit committee of the Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or

operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably

likely to adversely affect the Registrants ability to record, process,

summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other

employees who have a significant role in the Registrants internal control

over financial reporting.



/s/ Harry Chew

Harry Chew

Chief Financial Officer

May 29, 2008
Exhibit 32.2
                                  ------------

                      Statement of Chief Financial Officer
         Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code


Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the
undersigned, Henry P. Herms, the Vice President - Finance and Chief Financial
Officer of CopyTele, Inc., hereby certifies that:

     1.   The Company's Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the period ended July 31,
          2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
          13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


                                                   /s/ Henry P. Herms
                                                   ------------------
                                                   Henry P. Herms
                                                   Vice President - Finance and
September 2, 2004                                  Chief Financial Officer
# C_2022359EN.01006101.xml

| 19.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/61

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — AI and Others v ECDC

(Case T-864/19) (1)

(Civil service - ECDC staff members - Psychological harassment - Request for assistance - Prior warnings - Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Scope of the duty to provide assistance - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Opening of an investigation - Reasonable time period - Liability - Unlawfulness)

(2022/C 359/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: AI, HV, HW, HY (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (represented by: J. Mannheim, acting as Agent, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

By their action brought under Article 270 TFEU, lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 17 December 2019, the applicants, AI, HV, HW and HY, seek compensation for the harm which they claim to have suffered as a result, essentially, of the lack of an appropriate response from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) in relation to the conduct of A (Head of Unit) towards them between 2012 and 2018, constituting, in their view, psychological harassment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.

---